Honestly, there is actually a case to be made for supporting pro-life Dems occasionally. It's a Harry Reid situation: he was technically pro-life but the party position was so firm he consistently voted the pro-choice positions most/all of the time anyways. Poaching a few seats in red states with pro-life dems probably does more to protect female autonomy than jettisoning those seats to republicans. But there's, what, a few of these seats AT MOST in congress? Where the area is culturally conservative but economically liberal enough that a conservadem could win? That just doesn't seem to happen much anymore. Still, you could fund those folks on a case-by-case basis. but just say "the democratic party is the pro-choice party. the end" without jettisoning the commitment to the position at the highest levels. I mean, jesus christ.

Canada legalized same-sex marriage under Prime Minister Paul Martin, a Catholic who said that he was personally opposed to it based on his faith, but said that his job was not to enact his personal beliefs but to work with public opinion. There can be a distinction between a candidate's personal views and what they acknowledge to be their political obligations. Strict purity tests just doesn't result in intelligent and conscientious candidates. The anger from the left end of American politics risks producing the same kind of bozo candidates that the far right does. That's not advocating for centrism, but realizing that dogmatism isn't healthy in a pluralist society and/or system.

Canada legalized same-sex marriage under Prime Minister Paul Martin, a Catholic who said that he was personally opposed to it based on his faith, but said that his job was not to enact his personal beliefs but to work with public opinion. There can be a distinction between a candidate's personal views and what they acknowledge to be their political obligations. Strict purity tests just doesn't result in intelligent and conscientious candidates. The anger from the left end of American politics risks producing the same kind of bozo candidates that the far right does. That's not advocating for centrism, but realizing that dogmatism isn't healthy in a pluralist society and/or system.

Well, I think the reality is that Dem establishment does have purity tests it runs, it's just all on disallowing left economic positions. They obviously don't do purity tests on social issues. It's ironic that the socialist left gets lambasted by social progressives for being insufficiently woke on this stuff when it's the HillaryDems who sell out on these things every time.

The party - its platform, its non-elected leadership - should be consistent and unwavering on these issues in terms of what the party will stand for for its constituents and what it expects from its caucus. Which is why this "announcement" is deserving of scorn. Again, that doesn't rule out tactically supporting more conservative Dems in strategic areas, but it keeps the institution as a whole committed and less likely to bend on critical human rights issues. That's how to thread the needle between staying committed to just causes and not forcing purity tests where it doesn't make sense, imho.

Canada legalized same-sex marriage under Prime Minister Paul Martin, a Catholic who said that he was personally opposed to it based on his faith, but said that his job was not to enact his personal beliefs but to work with public opinion. There can be a distinction between a candidate's personal views and what they acknowledge to be their political obligations. Strict purity tests just doesn't result in intelligent and conscientious candidates. The anger from the left end of American politics risks producing the same kind of bozo candidates that the far right does. That's not advocating for centrism, but realizing that dogmatism isn't healthy in a pluralist society and/or system.

Well, I think the reality is that Dem establishment does have purity tests it runs, it's just all on disallowing left economic positions. They obviously don't do purity tests on social issues. It's ironic that the socialist left gets lambasted by social progressives for being insufficiently woke on this stuff when it's the HillaryDems who sell out on these things every time.

The party - its platform, its non-elected leadership - should be consistent and unwavering on these issues in terms of what the party will stand for for its constituents and what it expects from its caucus. Which is why this "announcement" is deserving of scorn. Again, that doesn't rule out tactically supporting more conservative Dems in strategic areas, but it keeps the institution as a whole committed and less likely to bend on critical human rights issues. That's how to thread the needle between staying committed to just causes and not forcing purity tests where it doesn't make sense, imho.

And that's a problem that the Democrats are so dogmatic on economic policy, the ugly result of Bill Clinton's acceptance of Reagan. Of course any party is going to have basic positions on any number of issues, but it's much healthier for internal debate for a variety of views within those positions. It's clear how lethal it's been to the Republicans, especially as they keep moving the line of True Conservative farther and farther to the right. Democratic leadership is stuck in a mindset of keeping open its right flank while being dogmatic on its left. There's an irony that even as the Republicans are doing all they can to limit voting in structural ways, the Democrats are doing the same by limiting admission to their club.

My god but she's cynical and duplicitous to be peddling such bullshit. If she'd won, it would have been understood it was because the Republicans nominated one of the most toxic candidates of all time. If anything, her win would have been tainted, not proof of perfection, because she hadn't beaten a serious opponent. What a loathsome wannabe she is.http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... s-if-i-won

My god but she's cynical and duplicitous to be peddling such bullshit. If she'd won, it would have been understood it was because the Republicans nominated one of the most toxic candidates of all time. If anything, her win would have been tainted, not proof of perfection, because she hadn't beaten a serious opponent. What a loathsome wannabe she is.http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... s-if-i-won

My god but she's cynical and duplicitous to be peddling such bullshit. If she'd won, it would have been understood it was because the Republicans nominated one of the most toxic candidates of all time. If anything, her win would have been tainted, not proof of perfection, because she hadn't beaten a serious opponent. What a loathsome wannabe she is.http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... s-if-i-won

Shes trying to exonerate herself and shift the blame.

There was never any doubt. As long as there's a denial or lie handy, a Clinton will never resort to honesty.

Interesting to see some establishment electeds try to deflect, but the rank and file seems pretty ready to immediately cut bait. Just shows how totally connected to their base and for sure sincere dems establishment is with all the #believewomen stuff.

Interesting to see some establishment electeds try to deflect, but the rank and file seems pretty ready to immediately cut bait. Just shows how totally connected to their base and for sure sincere dems establishment is with all the #believewomen stuff.

Yeah...the dems have, for the most part, been quick to call any of their guys out. Except for Clinton. Franken needs to resign.